Professor Nancy DiTomaso

Rutgers Faculty of Management

Department of Organization Management

180 University Avenue

Newark, New Jersey 07102

973-353-5984 voice; 973-353-1664 fax (work)

908-889-7457 voice; 908-889-2291 fax (home

ditomaso@andromeda.rutgers.edu

January, 2001

This paper describes the results of interviews done with randomly selected whites between the ages of 25 and 55 in three areas of the U.S. regarding their educational and job histories and their views on public policy issues. Four aspects of the interviews help explain why white Americans do not seem to experience the kind of moral dilemma that Myrdal predicted. First, the results indicate that while most whites benefit from structural advantage in the form of networks, resources, and the "benefit of the doubt," that this sort of structural advantage is invisible to them, usually forgotten, or minimized or discounted. Instead, the interviewees believe the reason for the outcomes in their lives to be their own hard work, persistence, and motivation. Second, the interviews reveal that egalitarianism among Americans does not imply economic equality, but only the right to try to get as much as you are capable of obtaining. Third, the life histories in the interviews demonstrate the importance of structural advantage for developing competence and skill. Fourth, because the interviewees generalize their experiences to nonwhites and, hence, believe that "everyone has opportunity," these day-to-day experiences and perceptions profoundly shape the political views the interviewees hold on race and public policy. The paper also discusses the variations on these issues by region, gender, and class.

Myrdal (1944) argued that America would solve "The Negro Problem" because of the incompatibility of the American Creed of freedom and equality and the glaring inequality that existed for blacks in the U.S. Although seemingly naive and optimistic, his argument is actually a rather sophisticated one. Specifically, he argued that structural conditions in the economy, technology, and demography, combined with the inevitable entry of the U.S. into a position of world political leadership, would require that the U.S. solve its racial problems. Further, he argued that most white Americans outside the South were inclined to do so, because of their own moral dilemma regarding the embarrassment of racial inequality. He further argued that the weakness of the South with respect to the rest of the country would force it to eventually give way to greater political freedom for blacks, and that the internal divisions within the South, at any rate, weakened the efforts of other Southerners to maintain a caste system.

A great deal has transpired since the monumental study that Myrdal directed was published. To the extent that solving the racial problem, from Myrdal's view, required extending formal political rights to blacks throughout the country and the elimination of Jim Crow policies, then America has "solved" its racial problem. A dilemma still exists, though, because these efforts have not led to racial equality. That is, white racial attitudes have changed, but the change has not led to racial equality. As Pettigrew (1979: 119) explains: "White Americans increasingly reject racial injustice in principle, but are reluctant to accept the measures necessary to eliminate the injustice."

This paper seeks to explain why white Americans do not seem to be affected by the moral dilemma that Myrdal predicted. Through an analysis of intensive interviews with whites between the ages of 25-55 in three areas of the country, we can gain insight about how white Americans currently understand the racial "problem," as Myrdal termed it. The interviews suggest four explanations for why there is no American dilemma for white Americans. In fact, Myrdal recognized these issues, but he did not see how the relevance of them undermined the optimism he predicted with regard to racial justice.

First, I find that there is a disconnection between the way whites use structural advantage to get jobs and to get ahead and the way they construct meaning out of their everyday life experiences. Myrdal (1944: 1010) very perceptively did recognize this disjuncture: "The social paradox in the North is exactly this, that almost everybody is against discrimination in general, but at the same time, almost everybody practices discrimination in his own personal affairs." The interviews in this study not only show that the same process still exists today, but it takes place through white inclusion of other whites, which the interviewees do not think of as discrimination. That is, the interviews reveal that in the Post-Civil Rights period the lives of whites are structured so that whites can provide or gain advantage by acting for other whites rather than acting against blacks (or other nonwhites)--i.e. inclusion rather than exclusion (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Thus, again, whites can draw on advantage, but believe that they are being consistent with their egalitarian values.

The white interviewees, therefore, do not, in their own construction of meaning about issues of inequality, face a moral dilemma. White Americans can, therefore, believe themselves to be fair and equitable, while at the same time actively seeking and using "advantage." In other words, we find in the interviews that, despite the claim by white Americans that they believe in "equal opportunity," they do not rely on equal opportunity in their own lives. Instead, they use "advantage" primarily by helping each other. I find, though, that the structural advantages used by most white interviewees are invisible to them cognitively, and instead, what is salient is their own effort, hard work, and motivation. Hence, the interviews document attribution theory (Pettigrew, 1979; Hogg & Abrams, 1988): the interviewees minimize situational and enhance dispositional attributions in their lives.

Second, we find that egalitarianism does not mean support for economic equality. As Hochschild (1995) finds, Americans, as represented by the interviewees in this study believe in political equality (equality before the law), but not economic equality (see also Kluegel & Smith, 1986). Most interviewees said they were not particularly concerned with inequality. Those who were concerned with inequality believed that the source of the problem are those who "still discriminate." They did not see their own use of advantage in their own or the lives of their children as the source of the problem. Consistent with the disconnection between the use of structural advantage and the salience of personal effort, this study finds that whites do not see the advantages that they enjoy. Thus, having such advantages is not, in their own perceptions, inconsistent with their values.

Third, while Myrdal gave a great deal of emphasis to "the vicious circle," in which the discriminatory behavior of whites toward blacks contributed to conditions that made it difficult for blacks to perform as well as whites, and then reinforced white prejudice, he did not discuss this dynamic in his optimistic conclusion to the report. The life histories of the interviewees in this study show, as Myrdal would have recognized, that the link between advantage and skill development is cumulatively consequential in people's lives. Early opportunities lead to future opportunities, but being shut out of early opportunities may make it impossible to ever be able to play the game. The white interviewees in this study understood the importance of getting settled by the mid-20s, which for the most part, meant finding a job that was reasonably secure, provided benefits, and enabled the interviewee to buy a house and begin a family. Those who were not able to do this ended up in very different life situations than those who did. That blacks are more likely not to be included in the same way as whites and, hence, not to be able to get settled in the same way or as early as whites, can have lifetime consequences, because at a later point in their lives, they become even less able to compete for future opportunities.

Fourth, we find evidence in these interviews that the conflict and discomfort that would present itself if whites believed themselves to be unfair and inegalitarian is addressed by a strong ideology regarding "equal opportunity" and "colorblindness," by which whites have convinced themselves that the advantages they enjoy are the result of their having the motivation to use opportunities that come along, just like everyone else. There is also a fairly general presumption that whatever racial problems existed in the past are now "resolved" by formal civil rights. This form of white egalitarianism is reinforced by the day to day experiences in the life histories of the white interviewees. Because they themselves perceive that they faced challenges, obstacles, and uncertainty in their own efforts to "get ahead," and because they believe that opportunity is available to anyone who is willing to take "advantage" of it, then whites believe that anyone who does what they have done can have the same life advantages that they have come to enjoy. Again, there is, therefore, no moral dilemma for them.

The current study finds that white Americans do not experience a moral dilemma because of the existence of racial inequality, despite normative beliefs in egalitarianism, because there is a disconnection between the kind of structural advantage that they receive and the way they make sense of it in their everyday lives. Through in depth, semi-structured interviews, the current study documents the educational and job histories and the public policy views of randomly selected whites between the ages of 25 and 55 in three areas of the country, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee. Procedures outlined by Lamont (2000) were used to identify the sample. (See Table 1 for a distribution of the interviews by education level, gender, and location.)

[Table 1 about here]

The results reveal the processes by which white Americans get an education, get jobs, get ahead, and gain "unearned" rewards. The interviews reveal that, in general, the respondents enjoy extensive advantages because of the help they receive from family, friends, and acquaintances (primarily from "weak ties" in a system of community or neighborhood reciprocity rather than from strong ties) and that they are both protected from failure and are helped to succeed through access to family resources (e.g., getting help with down payments, inheriting the family home, getting no or low interest loans when things are bad or when they want to start a business, getting help from the connections that come from neighborhood and community, and being given the benefit of the doubt when circumstances would otherwise suggest failure or misdeeds). These kinds of advantages are well documented in other research, although this study suggests that the pervasiveness and extent of such "unearned" advantages are far greater than past research would suggest.

It is not just that the interviewees got a great deal of help, but that in many cases one could say that the help was "unearned." While some got help when they "did what they were supposed to," many also got help when they screwed up, failed, goofed off, or perhaps were not especially worthy. For example, not only did respondents get help getting jobs for which they were objectively qualified, but they also got jobs that they needed to learn, got help with tests if they couldn't pass them on their own, were able to get off if they got caught doing illegal things, and often had someone pull them along when they themselves lacked direction. Most--although not all--of the people whom I interviewed, were able to find a niche for themselves and their families by their mid-20s, so that they could live at least a middle class life style, and if they wanted, they could then pass along similar advantages to other family members as well. Most of the interviewees had help getting started, they had help getting settled, and many could then use the initial help to get ahead. I found that such help was important at all class levels, and for both good jobs and lousy ones (Waldinger, 1996), for private sector and public sector jobs, and for affirmative action and civil service employers. In other words, it was important for most of the interviewees through most of their lives.

The exceptions are notable, in part because there were so few of them, and because of what they themselves reveal in terms of the nature of structural advantage. For the most part, there were only three types of exceptions: "women's jobs" which did not pay a family wage (e.g., in retail sales or waitressing); jobs obtained through college or high school placement offices (e.g., first engineering jobs, but these were very few and, of course, are themselves indicative of an important network or connection, given that employers specifically choose the colleges or high schools where they will recruit); and some jobs that otherwise might have been obtained through connections which were instead obtained through market processes during the height of a labor shortage (e.g., men who avoided the military obtaining factory jobs during the Vietnam War). There were also a few exceptions among those who might have had help, but who, because of their own failings, could not take advantage of opportunities that would otherwise have been made available.

As the social psychological literature would suggest (Pettigrew, 1979; Brewer, 1979), however, these "situational" factors are largely invisible to the interviewees, so much so that in the interviews, such information would come out primarily through probing. For example, one interviewee told me that she had "just looked in the paper" for a job she got, but after I probed further, she then explained that as a matter of fact she had been working for a company "right down the street" and that it was "ironic" because the man who was hiring knew that she had worked for the same company where his daughter had worked, that they knew a lot of the same people, and she and his daughter had worked on the same accounts. There were a lot of such "ironic" incidents revealed in the interviews.

The forgetting that makes such structural advantages invisible, however, is contradictory, in that respondents both know and do not know about how such advantages work. They can articulate their importance when they are talking about people in general ("It's who you know, not what you know."), but when it comes to their own life histories, they often forget to mention it, or minimize it, or actively discount it, or frequently deny that it made a difference for them. For example, one working class fellow who got into the union through his father and then into a more secure job with the help of his friends said when asked if he had "earned" his place in life: "Did I earn it? Yeah, I worked for what I've got. Definitely. Nobody gave me nothing. Nothing."

Both the magnitude and effect of family resources were also minimized by the interviewees. The respondents would say that they got no family help at all, and then when I would probe, they would say something like, "Well, my mother did buy me my first car," or "Yeah, my family gave us the money for the down payment on our first house." They would then add "but we paid it all back" (without interest, of course), or "My grandmother died and left me a couple of thousand dollars and I used it to pay for tuition." Interestingly, few, if any, of the interviewees offered the fact that they lived in better neighborhoods, better school systems, or in communities where they could find someone to help them as sources of advantage and privilege that they enjoyed.

My claim that structural advantage was invisible may seem to some to be too generous an interpretation. That is, some may feel that the respondents very well know that they are getting structural advantage and are just hiding it from me. That interpretation, though, does not fit the way the interviewees talked about their experiences, which sometimes seemed to imply that they themselves could not hear what they were saying. For example, one working class guy said, when asked about the changes that have occurred for women in access to education and jobs:

This same interviewee said that, "Nepotism is the absolute worst thing." And, of course, the error that he unconsciously made at the end of his statement belies his sense of entitlement to structural advantage. Another working class interviewee made a similar kind of non-sequitur statement when he said how unfair it was that employers had to hire women for certain jobs, "Because I've known quite a few people that...they try to get their young kids in there for the four year apprenticeship and a lot of the young men couldn't get into get it. But they would give it to the women and the blacks and how is that fair?"

In most of the interviews, the juxtaposition of structure and social psychology is not in the same sentence. Instead, the interviewees would have just told me while recounting their job histories that almost every job that they had came about because someone they knew hired them, or someone recommended them, or someone told them when and how to apply. Then when I would later ask them whether they earned their place in life and what most contributed to their having the kind of life they have now, they would talk about personal characteristics such as hard work, initiative, and persistence.

Even though structural advantages were invisible or minimized by the interviewees, it did seem that when they were brought up in the conversation that the interviewees recognized that what they were telling me constituted advantage, and therefore was somewhat "illegitimate." This is presumably why most often they did not mention such connections, assistance, or favor without the probing. Often when the interviewees would tell me about the neighbor, or the relative, or the chance acquaintance who helped them find a job, they would wink, or turn their heads and give a little smile, or preface the comment with a "you know how it is" look. And, when the information came out in the questioning, many would follow the revelation with discounting by saying such things as, "but I could do the job," "but I paid it all back," "but that just helped me get in the door, then I had to prove myself." Yet, even when these kinds of reactions emerged, when I then asked about what contributed to their current life situation, they did not mention the help they received, but instead, talked about how hard they worked and how much they tried. In no case that I can recall did the interviewee acknowledge that perhaps others could have done the job, pay it back, or prove themselves if only they had been given the chance.

Given the forgetting about the help that was received or the resources that put a floor on failure or provided a step up, it is understandable that most of the interviewees constructed an interpretation of having earned their place in life and of having gotten to where they are because of character traits such as hard work, persistence, and willingness to sacrifice. For example, one upper middle class interviewee who had a very spotty corporate career, but who was able to carve out a niche with the help of family connections in a job paying, as he said, "over $100,000," said when asked what most contributed to his having the kind of life he has now:

Many claimed to have done it on their own "without help from anybody." Politics and ideology seemed to overlap extensively on this issue. Those interviewees who described getting ahead in more individualistic terms also seemed to be more politically conservative, while those who described getting ahead in more structural terms were likely to be more politically liberal.

These views, then affected what the interviewees thought about various public policies. Those with more individualistic and politically conservative or moderate views believed that the government should primarily help people to help themselves. They were more likely to feel that the problems of the inner city are due to the breakdown of family values, to alcohol and drug addiction, and to crime. Those with more structural and politically liberal views believed that government in the U.S. can afford to help people who need it. They were more likely to feel that the problems of the inner city are due to lack of jobs, poor educational systems, and poverty. The individualist respondents constituted the overwhelming majority.

Egalitarianism to the whites whom I interviewed did not mean equal resources or equal access to resources. Indeed, when I asked why people are rich and why people are poor (using lists from Kluegel and Smith, 1986), the responses were decidedly inegalitarian. Most of the interviewees said that the rich are rich because of personal drive and willingness to take risks, and many added that those who fit this characteristic deserved what they got. The whites I interviewed do not feel that the rich exploit them or take advantage of them. On the contrary, most feel that the rich deserve what they have, and in fact, most--including many of the working class--cheer the rich on. A number of people, for example, praised Bill Gates and noted that he deserves what he has, because he was smart enough to build the company to earn it. For example, one working class interviewee from Ohio said:

When asked why people are poor, they were most likely to say that their backgrounds give them attitudes that keep them from improving and the lack of effort by the poor. Then when asked if they were concerned about the existence of economic inequality, the fact that some are very rich and some are very poor, many said they were not concerned, or added that they were concerned only about there being so many poor people. They were not concerned about the numbers who were rich. As Hochschild (1981) found, egalitarianism was defined in terms of the political sphere and perhaps in the family (although this did not come up much). With reference to the economy, egalitarianism meant only the right to try, not to be "guaranteed anything."

When the interviewees expressed concern with the poor, it was primarily with respect to the elderly and the disabled. There was concern for the elderly because the interviewees felt that they had already earned it. There was concern for the disabled because the interviewees assumed that they were poor through no fault of their own.

The interviewees did not believe that anyone should expect the government to help them, and most said that just because some people have less economically was not a reason why the government should help them. These kinds of views seemed to be non-racial ways of talking about race. The interviewees, in general, said that the government should help only those down on their luck to get back on their feet, and then only temporarily. As many said, it should not be a way of life.

The interviewees seemed to presume that the primary solution to poverty is providing better education to children. There was no consciousness in these statements of the importance of structural advantage for the rich or the lack of structural advantage for the poor. In fact, such factors were explicitly discounted as the comment on Gates indicates. Some talked about the need for "better values." For example, many interviewees said that the problems in the inner city were because "people do not know any better" or because they have not learned that they should have hope.

The existence of economic inequality does not, in itself, appear to be a problem from the view of the interviewees, presumably because they do not believe that inequality is the result of exploitation. The only time exploitation was mentioned was to discount it as a possible reason for the poverty.

When asked what equal opportunity should mean, most responded by saying, "The best person should get the job." Many added that they opposed giving a job to someone just because they are black or female, often adding such comments as, "It shouldn't matter whether you are blue, or green, or whatever." But, when I probed further to ask how they would ensure that the best person got the job and that opportunities were equal, most were at a loss to offer any suggestions. Instead, many would then say, "Life's not fair," or would add, "There really isn't any way. If an employer wants to hire someone, they can always find a way to justify it." The context of this type of egalitarianism, as I have been arguing, is the affirmative inclusion that whites receive that makes it possible for them to most always be the "best person" when such decisions are considered. As Krieger (1998: 1304-5) explains:

The interviewees got jobs because they knew someone or knew someone who knew someone. In many cases, they told me that, "You just don't get a job there if you don't know someone." They sometimes got help with tests. One interviewee explained that if you like the guy, you give him a higher score. Another told me that someone gave him the test and the answers in advance, because he couldn't read and knew he couldn't pass it on his own. Others told me about getting into trouble with the law, but having the charges dropped. A surprising number of high school athletes told me about how they could not qualify medically for Viet Nam. Even those who flunked out, got fired, or even threatened the boss, usually had someone who could help them get another chance or avoid the consequences, and when this kind of help failed, there were often family resources to rely on, like inheriting the family house so they would have a place to live. But most of these interviewees also told me that "nobody helped me," and hence, when asked, would say of blacks, "why can't they do it the way I did?" One working class fellow, whose life history showed evidence of help of every kind, said when asked about why there are problems in the inner city:

The notion of "Why can't they do it the way I did," was pervasive in the interviews. There was no consciousness expressed in the interviews that the unearned structural advantages in the lives of the interviewees had any effect on the lives of those who were not included in the same way. Instead, there was a presumption that "everyone has the same opportunities," and that "if they would just try as hard as I have," then they would make it the way I did. Indeed, it was easy for the interviewees to believe so strongly in their own efficacy because for most of them it was objectively hard, the outcomes were uncertain, and many felt as if their lives could easily have turned out differently without the extent of their effort. And, on this point, they would be right. Despite the help and the second chances, none of them were guaranteed a specific life outcome, and given that the structural help is invisible to them, their struggle and sacrifice are what they remember when they think about how they got to where they are.

Even those who gave a structural explanation for the disadvantage of blacks attributed black problems to poverty, poor education, and to the discrimination and racism of other people. They did not see an inherent link between the way jobs are hoarded for them or the way the resources their families accumulated through a similar kind of hoarding was made available to them and the inability of blacks (or other minorities) to do what they did, namely, to get an education that provides skills and credentials, to get a job that pays a living wage, to live in a community where they can be a contributing part, and to take responsibility for themselves as they would undoubtedly like to do.

There has been a great deal of reliance in recent years on the importance of social categorization to explain the existence of inequality. For example, the work of Tajfel (1981) and Tajfel and Turner (1986) have provided a foundation for work on the social psychology of intergroup relations. The language of categorization has also come into the sociology literature through the work, for example, of Tilly (1998) in his highly acclaimed work on "durable inequality" in which he outlines a theory of what he calls categorical inequality. Tilly's theory gives special prominence to the process of "opportunity hoarding," which is similar in conception to what I am calling affirmative inclusion. While I find this book very perceptive, I find two problems with it based on the results of my interviews.

First, Tilly argues that it is nonelites who engage primarily in the process of opportunity hoarding, and he argues that because these are nonelites, that their opportunity hoarding is not necessarily exploitative. Based on my interviews, everyone does it if they can. Further, Tilly presents the process of opportunity hoarding as if it is intendedly instrumental on the part of some social groups. While this may be true in the abstract, for example, knowing the importance of networking or of reliance on family, as already noted, I found in my interviews that such help was invisible to most people. Even more invisible was the potential consequences of such opportunity hoarding for those who were not included through such processes. In contrast to Tilly's view, I believe from the results of my study that opportunity hoarding is a key component of exploitation. If for whites, as I find in these interviews, almost every job at almost every point of life is obtained "with a little help from friends," then where are the jobs for those who are not so affirmatively included. Not only do I believe, as does Tilly that opportunity hoarding and exploitation are interrelated, but I also believe that in the Post-Civil Rights United States, opportunity hoarding is the primary vehicle to exploitation. My interviewees benefit directly from having jobs that pay a living wage made available to them, and they benefit indirectly from the low cost of goods and services made available to them because those who could not get jobs like theirs had to take jobs that paid such low wages or perhaps no jobs at all. Further, white hoarding of jobs for themselves contributes to the availability of a labor supply that can be exploited in whatever jobs they can find.

Second, Tilly's theory, like many others, gives utmost importance to categorical distinctions as the basis for durable inequality, just as social psychology assumes that social categorization is the basis of both prejudice and discrimination (Brewer, 1979). Following recent work in cognitive and cultural sociology, Tilly emphasizes the importance of boundaries in the reproduction of what he calls categorical inequality. Tilly, however, gives much less attention to the processes by which more dominant or favored groups need to mask or hide or make "invisible" the kind of categorical advantages that they enjoy. Especially in a democracy, durable advantage has to be transformed into deservedness, or it needs to be hidden from view. My interviews suggest that advantage is hidden cognitively, as well as politically. The lack of knowledge about the life situations of the disadvantaged, which Mills (1997) calls an "epistemology of ignorance," makes it possible for privileged groups to believe that everyone has the same opportunities. In other words, the invisibility of the structures of inequality contribute to their justification (Lamont, Forthcoming; McAll, 1992). Jackman (1994: 64) argues, for example,

Further, she describes the relationship of inequality as "a societal habit, ingrained into the way of life" (Jackman, 1994: 65) and explains, " . . . it is precisely because of its invisibility in the day-to-day arena that the institutionalization of bias is so profound" (1994: 67).

My interviews suggest that whites treat themselves as normative and they believe that their own life experiences are generalizable to everyone else. Because structural advantages are not consciously salient to most of the interviewees, then indeed, this is how they experience their lives, and hence, it forms the ideological lens through which they see issues of inequality. Hence, while categorical inequality may underlie the basis of durable inequality, a key process that Tilly only touches on is the need in a democracy for dominant groups to treat their own categories as the only categories, i.e., as normative and "taken for granted." This implies that those from other groups are treated as if they are members of the normative category, who have failed to meet the expectations, the conditions, and the moral responsibilities of legitimate group membership. Those from other groups, thus, are both in and out at the same time. They are held up to the responsibilities of group membership, but are prevented from having the structural access to meet those responsibilities. They are, therefore, morally condemned as being irresponsible, unmotivated, and as willfully violating the rules that the dominant group members believe they themselves follow. Because of this reasoning, the white interviewees feel morally justified in what they have attained in life. They believe that the outcomes in their lives came about because of their own hard work and effort. Because they believe that the poor--and specifically racial minorities--did not work hard or try like they did, they see no moral dilemma in their advantage and the disadvantage of the poor.

The evidence for these "taken for granted" assumptions in my interviews are that many of the interviewees talked about the need to be "colorblind," they said that "color shouldn't matter," or they declared that "everyone should have the same opportunity." As noted, there was no recognition or acknowledgement that this normative pronouncement is inconsistent with the stories they had just told me about the unearned structural advantages that came to them both from processes of affirmative inclusion and from access to family resources.

Egalitarianism for these white respondents, then, means not to see, recognize, or acknowledge categorical inequality. Egalitarianism is to refuse to recognize categorical boundaries, to deny that they matter or that they exist, and to chastise those who call attention to categorical differences. It is important to understand, however, when thinking about these processes, that this is an ideology in the original sense of the word. It is not a trick as such but is believed to be true. The self serving aspect of it is not visible either. Because the interviewees do not see the structural dynamics of their own lives, then their everyday experiences are what are salient to them, and these confirm for them the ideology that they espouse. As Jackman argues, these whites, for the most part, have not themselves had to tell a black person that he or she couldn't have a job. They haven't themselves stood in the schoolhouse door to keep blacks out of their schools--in Nashville, they hoarded opportunities by creating their own "Christian" schools, which just happen to be almost all white. They haven't themselves had to refuse a mortgage to a black person or be the one to refuse to sell him or her their homes. If any such incidents occur, the interviewees would undoubtedly have explanations that rely on moral interpretations, not on race per se. This is not, therefore, just another form of racism. The point is that most whites live lives that are structured in a way that they do not have to be racists. They do not have to experience themselves in that way, and they can, therefore, attribute any problems that may still exist to other, unnamed people, who are the racists. In their understanding, and in their everyday experience, it is not them.

As Krieger (1998: 1311) explains:

Krieger argues that this very restricted view of discrimination as arising out of prejudice and purposeful ill will forms the basis of the increasingly narrow view in the law of what is illegal discriminatory behavior. Based on my interviews, this very restricted view is also widely held by white Americans, and they use it as a template to absolve themselves of blame. In other words, they seem to assume that if discrimination does not meet these conditions, then it is not problematic. In most cases, they do not themselves fit this schema, so they believe themselves to be blameless in the problems faced by minorities and the poor.

The boundarylessness to white conceptions of egalitarianism are evident in a great many interview responses. Not only did the interviewees frequently claim that "color doesn't matter." They also had great difficulty thinking about themselves in group terms. When I asked what groups or categories were most relevant to them, they frequently looked puzzled and mentioned purely descriptive characteristics, such as happy, honest, or hard working. When this was followed up with a question, do you ever think of yourself in terms of race, ethnicity, class, or gender, many would say, "I never think of myself that way." When asked if there are some groups of people who have more right to expect the government to help them and some who have less right, many responded with an emphatic no.

The interviews were done in three locations: New Jersey (very heterogeneous), Ohio (very homogeneous), and Tennessee (relatively homogeneous and in the South). All were in urban SMSAs, but a number of the interviewees lived in small towns surrounding a center city (primarily, because this is where large concentrations of whites live). There appears to be a difference by area of the country in the frequency with which such connections helped people get jobs. There did not appear to be differences, however, in the extent to which family resources helped cushion people from failure or helped lift them to success. There seemed to be more evidence of "connections" in the New Jersey interviews than in the Ohio and Tennessee interviews. That is, there were more people in Ohio and Tennessee in jobs which fall into the three "exception" categories: jobs that did not pay a family wage, jobs obtained through placement offices or personnel agencies, and jobs obtained during periods of intense labor shortage.

There seemed to be another dimension to these differences, however. The areas where I interviewed in New Jersey, by design, were much more racially and ethnically diverse than those in either Ohio or Tennessee. In this sense, more of the interviewees in Ohio and Tennessee were whites who in their job searches would be primarily competing with other whites, whereas in New Jersey it seems likely that the interviewees may have more often been competing with blacks, Hispanics, or Asians. In other words, it seemed that where the boundaries were more challenged, they also had to be drawn more tightly, but when there is less reason to draw boundaries, then internal competition is greater and special favors less helpful.

For example, in the area of Ohio where I did interviewing, there are only a few very large employers whose blue collar jobs pay above average wages. For working class people, these are the "good jobs" in the area. For these jobs, although knowing someone who worked at the plant helped, it was not a guarantee that the son or daughter or cousin could find a job. Indeed, in most cases, having a relative at the plant was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for getting a job at these companies. (I interviewed a number of children of workers in these plants who themselves could not get a job at the company where their parent worked.) Almost all working class interviewees who got jobs in such companies told me of having to go back weekly for many months or even years before the company would give them a call. Many also told of regularly showing up at the personnel office at the company and making it clear how much they wanted the job. I was much less likely to find this situation in New Jersey, even for those in working class jobs. Further, in New Jersey I interviewed a number of men with reasonably good paying working class jobs who couldn't read. All of them got their jobs with the help of friends or acquaintances. There were a few such people in Ohio, but none in the Tennessee sample, much to my surprise.

Another difference among regions are the views of taxes and the government. Most of the interviewees in New Jersey and Ohio did not think that they themselves would be better off if the government did not respond to the demands made on it by poor people. This was not true in Tennessee, where many of the interviewees indicated that they would be able to pay lower taxes if some people did not make so many demands on the government. In Tennessee, there was widespread distrust in government, both in terms of not believing that the government could do a good job of delivering services and in believing that a lot of people receive government help who do not really need it. (The attack on government clearly seemed to be in the vein of "state's rights" arguments from the past, which in substance were also primarily racial in content.)

There appeared to be gender differences in the interviews in that men were more likely to describe connections and networks in the jobs they received than were women. As noted, this was primarily for those women who got "women's jobs" which did not pay a family wage. There also were fewer women, as we know from other research, with career expectations than among the male interviewees. Even so, there were working class and middle class women who got jobs because they received help from friends, family, or acquaintances. This was especially the case with restaurant jobs, although not so much with sales jobs in retail stores, where many said that they "just applied."

The role of children and families was, of course, quite prominent in defining both the educational and the job histories of the female respondents in a way that was not true for the male respondents. Women who married early and had children early invariably curtailed their own career progress, and many were never able to recover from the early missteps. Those women who also divorced early often ended up in vulnerable situations, sometimes ended up on public assistance or having to rely on their families for support.

There were not gender differences, for the most part, though in the views the interviewees expressed in terms of racial issues. In this regard, most of the female respondents seemed to follow or mirror the political views of their husbands or families (although this was not always the case). This was especially true of those women who did not work outside the home and who were dependent on their husbands for financial support. These women were also much less likely to express an interest in politics and less likely to be attuned to current political issues. In general, most of the women interviewees, however, were favorable about the changes that had occurred for women in the paid labor force, although many disavowed support for affirmative action. This was true even for those women who were otherwise politically conservative.

Interestingly, those with more structural views also seemed to be those who were more economically well off, better educated, and those who lived in more exclusive areas. These interviewees could explain in some detail how structural advantage worked, and they readily admitted to using it in their own lives. And, they were able to explain how structural disadvantage hurts blacks. Yet, very few of them thought of themselves as culpable for using structural advantage, because despite their understanding of structural issues, they did not see the outcomes in their own lives as interdependent with those of blacks. Instead, they attributed the problems for blacks to the decisions made by other, more prejudiced or discriminatory people. These were also the interviewees whose own lives were least affected by egalitarian government policies, because these were the interviewees who got most help from their family resources, from connections in getting into various jobs, whose children already were getting or did get great educations, and who lived in areas that most blacks cannot afford. Interestingly, this was also the group of interviewees who were somewhat less likely to say that they deserved or earned their current place in life.

For example, an extraordinarily wealthy interviewee in Nashville was extremely articulate about how the advantages that she had enjoyed by coming from a well to do, "old money" family had helped her. She was living, for example, in a house in one of the most exclusive areas of the city, and she explained that she and her husband were able to buy the house, despite not having incomes that would have warranted it, because of the existence of her stock portfolio. As she explained, the funny thing about money is that you don't actually have to spend it. You only have to have it. She said, the purpose, of course, is to pass it along to your children so that they have it. While she was very politically liberal on issues of racial inequality, she also added that as her children moved into teenage years, she was becoming less liberal. She explained, "I have to protect my children."

Another very thoughtful middle class guy who owned his own small construction company also gave very detailed explanations about the dynamics of poverty and the effects they have on those who are disadvantaged. When asked whether he earned his current place in life, he said yes he did, but he added,

The only other group of interviewees who talked in terms of a structural analysis of inequality were working class men, and they did so more in terms of class than of race. These working class men, who were often very involved in their unions, were decidedly the most racist of my interviewees. They were also the ones who perceived a specific and direct threat from egalitarian government policies, because for them, passing along access to the kinds of jobs they held to their children or other family members was the primary legacy that they could offer. The structural understanding of these interviewees seemed to be directly related to their strong and vocal opposition to affirmative action and other government help for blacks. These interviewees (and there were only a few of them, mostly in New Jersey or Ohio, and not so much in Tennessee) understood that if their sons or daughters could get into a union job like theirs, then they could live a middle class life style, but if they didn't then they would struggle throughout their lives because most had children who had not gone to college.

Given all the help that the interviewees have gotten in their own lives, it is interesting that they do not seem to see any interdependence in what happens in their lives and in the lives of blacks and other minorities. Because of this, even those who have a more structural view do not talk as if they themselves have any culpability in the disadvantage that blacks have and the advantage that whites have. The structural aspects of advantage, i.e., the sources of advantage in networks, resource distribution, processes of segregation, and so on, are invisible to most of my interviewees.

Instead, people believe that they have earned what they have, because it was hard, uncertain, and they were often faced with obstacles that were overcome. In the life stories the interviewees told, however, most of them got jobs throughout their lives that were "wired," or got them through helpful connections, networks, or because of a commonality of some sort with the decision-maker, but they do not see these connections as having any effect on those who do not get the jobs. Those who failed to get the jobs that the interviewees got were also invisible. They were non-events. Instead, the perception seems to run the other way around. Many interviewees told stories about not getting jobs because the jobs were wired by affirmative action (the "need to hire a black or a woman"), but they did not think about the jobs that they themselves got as being wired for them. This sort of "appropriation of jobs" from employers to help family and friends was not on anyone's agenda as a civil rights issue. On the contrary, most believed that this was desirable and acceptable.

The interviewees, in general, argue that opportunity is available to everyone if they will just use it. They say that if people do not like their jobs, they should quit and get different jobs. They say if they do not like where they are living, they can move. Most believe that people can "make it" if they just try hard enough, although they believe that some people have limited capability or are misdirected in their goals. In this regard, a number of interviewees talk about the need for "reasonable" goals, and therefore, also willingness to accept limitations and not to expect too much.

When asked about "what's fair to expect out of life, if you do what you are supposed to," most interviewees gave a description of a middle class life style: food, shelter, a job, health care, a pension, and education for your kids. When asked if most people are treated fairly, most interviewees said they were, although some said that there is "still discrimination." Most said that it should be defined in terms of "the best person should get the job." When pressed about how to do this, though, most finally said that there was no way, and that employers will always find a way around restrictions if they want to hire a particular person. Many then just dismissed the issue with, "life's not fair."

The interviewees also constructed an ideology of colorblindness in which their own advantage was not seen as a violation of the principle. They were uncomfortable with those who called attention to racial issues, as Myrdal also noted of those he met in the South. They are especially uncomfortable with black leaders who talked about racial inequality and discrimination. Instead, they favored leaders, such as Colin Powell or Michael Jordan, who never seem to talk about their racial identity. When the interviewees did acknowledge that perhaps there was "still discrimination," they usually mentioned the "older generation," or attributed this circumstance to other people, i.e., the "racist" people. Even those who were explicitly racist in their comments (and these were only a few), attributed their views to egalitarian principles. They also said that color shouldn't matter, and that "the best person" should get the job.

Based on the results of these interviews, Myrdal was not wrong to believe that Americans take seriously their beliefs about freedom and equality. Nor was he wrong to argue that most whites are bothered by the existence of racial inequality and would find it incompatible with their views of themselves as egalitarian and fair. In the Post-Civil Rights period, though, most whites believe that the end to Jim Crow policies, the passage of anti-discrimination laws, and government attention to equal rights has addressed the egregious problems that Myrdal described. Most espouse a belief in equal opportunity for everyone, including for white women, blacks and other minorities, but because of the disconnection between the structural advantages that they enjoy and the salience for them of individual effort and merit, they do not see that they themselves live by advantage and not by equal opportunity. Further, their view of egalitarianism is the opportunity to try your best, but there is no support for or belief about the desirability of equality of economic outcomes. Surprisingly, that was especially true among the working class interviewees.

The white interviewees, for the most part, believed that equal opportunity meant that "the best person should get the job," but this is in the context in which they experienced advantages that made it more likely that they could be evaluated as the "best person." And, when it was clear that they were not the best person, they often had connections or networks or family resources that helped them get the job anyway. When this happened and the issue was raised, the interviewee would typically discount this sort of help and declare, "But that just got me in the door. Then I had to prove myself." One working class guy in New Jersey, for example, explained about how he got his job:

I found that people everywhere in all kinds of jobs relied primarily on networks of friends, relatives, and acquaintances. Even in the public sector which is supposedly constrained by Civil Service tests, the interviewees repeatedly told me that one does not get a job without "knowing someone." Even in large companies with elaborate frameworks for "equal opportunity," jobs are often allocated to family and friends. Even in lousy jobs, it helps to know someone. And yet, these experiences were not salient when the interviewees reflected on what contributed to their having the kind of life they have. Because of this, they do not feel a moral dilemma about racial or other forms of inequality, because they do not see themselves--nor do they see the rich--as the source of inequality. Instead, they believe that the poor are themselves morally responsible, because of their attitudes, or because their parents didn't teach them to hope, or because "other" people "still discriminate." Because the interviewees in my study do not include themselves in these categories, they do not experience a moral dilemma about racial inequality, and they believe themselves to be fair and egalitarian.

Anderson, E. 1990. Street Wise: Race, class, and change in an urban community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Anderson, E. 1999. The social situation of the black executive: Black and white identities in the corporate world. Pp. 3-29 in M. Lamont, (Ed.), The cultural territories of race : Black and white boundaries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Baron, J.N. & Pfeffer, J. 1994. The social psychology of organizations and inequality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(3): 190-209.

Blauner, B. 1992. Talking past each other: Black and white languages of race.

The American Prospect, 10(Summer): 55-64.

Blumer, H. 1958. Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1: 3-7.

Bobo, L. 1988. Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial

attitudes. Pp. 85-116 in P.A. Katz & D.A. Taylor, Eliminating racism: Profiles

in controversy. NY: Plenum Press.

Bobo, L., Kluegel, J.R., & Smith, R.A. 1997. Laissez faire racism: The crystallization

of a 'kinder, gentler' anti-black ideology. In S.A. Tuch & J.K. Martin, Racial attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and change. Greenwood, CT: Praeger.

Braddock, J.H. & McPartland, J.M. 1987. How minorities continue to be excluded from equal employment opportunities: research on labor market and institutional barriers. Journal of Social Issues, 43(1): 5-39.

Brewer, M. B. 1979. In-group bias in the minimal group situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 307-324.

Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5): 475-482.

Brewer, M. B. 1995. In-group favoritism: The subtle side of intergroup discrimination.

In D. Messick & A. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Behavioral Research in Business Ethics.

Campbell, D.T. 1965. Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In Nebraska symposium on motivation, ed. by R. Levine. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Coleman, J. 1997. Long way to go: Black & white in America. NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Collins, S.M. 1997. Black corporate executives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Conley, D. 1999. Being black: Living in the red. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cose, E. 1993. The rage of a privileged class. NY: HarperCollins.

Davis, G. & Watson, G. 1985. Black life in corporate America: Swimming in the mainstream. NY: Anchor Books.

DiMaggio, P. 1997. Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 263- .

Duneier, M. 1992. Slim's table: Race, respectability, and masculinity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ellemers, N., Knippenberg, A.v., & Wilke, H. 1990. The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29: 233-246.

Essed, P. 1991. Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Farley, R. (Ed.) 1995a. State of the union: America in the 1990s, Vol. 1:

Economic Trends. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Farley, R. (Ed.) 1995b. State of the union: America in the 1990s, Vol. 2: Social Trends. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Farley, R. 1999. Racial issues: Recent trends in residential patterns and intermarriage. Pp. 85-128 in N.J. Smelser & J.C. Alexander, Diversity and its discontents: Cultural conflict and common ground in contemporary American society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Feagin, J.R. & Sikes, M.P. 1994. Living with racism: The black middle-class experience. Boston: Beacon Press.

Fine, M., Weis, L., Powell, L.C., & Wong, L. M. 1997. Off white: Readings on race, power, and society.

Fordham, S. 1996. Blacked out: Dilemma of race, identity, and success at Capital High.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. 1986. The aversive form of racism. In

J. Dovidio & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Pp. 61-89. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Granovetter, M. 1995. Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hacker, A. 1992. Two nations: Black and white, separate, hostile, unequal.

NY: Ballantine Books.

Hacker, A. 1998. Grand illusion. New York Review of Books, June 11.

Hochschild, J. L. 1981. What's fair: American beliefs about distributive justice.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hochschild, J. L. 1995. Facing up to the American dream: Race, class, and the soul of

the nation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hochschild, J.L. 2000. Lumpers and splitters, individuals and structures: Comments on Racialized Politics. Pp. 324-343 in D.O. Sears, et al., Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hogg, M. A. & Abrams, D. 1988. Social identifications: A social psychology of

intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

Huddy, L. 1998. From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Society for Political Psychology, Montreal, Canada.

Irons, E.D. & Moore, G.W. 1985. Black managers: The case of the banking industry. NY: Praeger.

Jackman, M. R. 1994. The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class,

and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jaynes, G.D. & Williams, R.M., Jr. (Eds.). 1989. A common destiny: Blacks and

American society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Kinder, D.R. & Sanders, L.M. 1996. Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kluegel, J.R. & Smith, E.R. 1986. Beliefs about inequality: Americans' views of what is and what ought to be. NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Korenman, S. & Turner, S.C. 1996. Employment contacts and minority-white wage differences. Industrial Relations, 35(1): 106-122.

Kotlowitz, A. 1998. Colorblind: How can you have a dialogue on race when blacks and

whites can see no gray? NYTimes Magazine, January 11: 22-23.

Kozol, J. 1991. Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools.

NY: HarperCollins

Krieger, L.H. 1998. Civil rights perestroika: Intergroup relations after affirmative action. California Law Review, 86: 1254-1334.

Krieger, L.H. 1995. The content of our categories: A cognitive bias approach to discrimination and equal employment opportunity. Stanford Law Review, 47: 1161-1248.

Lamont, M. Forthcoming. The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press and New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lamont, M. 1992. Money, morals, and manners. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lamont, M. & Fournier, M. (Eds.). 1992. Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Landry, B. 1987. The new black middle class. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Langer, E. 1989. Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

MacLeod, J. 1995. Ain't no making' it: Aspirations & attainment in a low-income neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Major, B. 1994. From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social

comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26: 293-355.

Massey, D.S. & Denton, N.A. 1993. American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McAll, C. 1992. Class, ethnicity, and social inequality. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

McCall, N. 1994. Makes me wanna holler: A young black man in America. NY: Vintage Books.

McGinley, A.C. 1997. The emerging cronyism defense and affirmative action: A critical perspective on the distinction between colorblind and race-conscious decision making under Title VII. Arizona Law Review, 39(3): 1004-1059.

Mills, C. W. 1997. The racial contract. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Myrdal, G. 1944. An American dilemma: The Negro problem and modern democracy. NY: Harper & Row.

Newman, K.S. 1999. No shame in my game: The working poor in the inner city. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Oliver, M.L. & Shapiro, T.M. 1995. Black wealth /white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality. NY: Routledge.

Parker, P.S. & ogilvie, dt. 1996. Gender, culture, and leadership: Toward a culturally distinct model of African-American women executives' leadership strategies. Leadership Quarterly, 7(2): 189-214.

Patterson, O. 1997. The ordeal of integration: Progress and resentment in America's

'racial' crisis. Washington, D.C.: Civitas.

Patterson, O. 1998. Rituals of blood: Consequences of slavery in two American centuries. Washington, D.C.: Civitas.

Pettigrew, T. 1979. The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 5: 461-76.

Portes, A. (Ed.). 1995. The economic sociology of immigration: Essays on networks, ethnicity, and entrepreneurship. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Quadagno, J. 1994. The color of welfare: How racism undermined the War on Poverty.

NY: Oxford University Press.

Rowe, M. 1981. The minutiae of discrimination: The need for support. Pp. 155-170 in B.L. Forisha & B.H. Goldman, Outsiders on the inside: Women & organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sachdev, I. & Bourhis, R.Y. 1984. Minimal majorities and minorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14: 35-52.

Sachdev, I. & Bourhis, R.Y. 1985. Social categorization and power differentials in group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15: 415-434.

Sachdev, I. & Bourhis, R.Y. 1987. Status differentials and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 277-293.

Sachdev, I. & Bourhis, R.Y. 1991. Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21: 1-24.

Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L, & Krysan, M. 1997. Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sears, D.O., Sidanius, J. & Bobo, L. 2000. Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shipler, D.K. 1997. A country of strangers: Blacks and whites in America. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. 1999. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Skrentny, J.D. 1996. The ironies of affirmative action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smelser, N.J. & Alexander, J.C. (Eds.) 1999. Diversity and its discontents: Cultural conflict and common ground in contemporary American society. Princeton: Princton University Press.

Sniderman, P.M. & Carmines, E.G. 1997. Reaching beyond race. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Sniderman, P.M. & Piazza, T. 1993. The scar of race. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Sokoloff, N.J. 1992. Black women and white women in the professions. NY: Routledge.

Steinberg, S. (Ed.). 2000. Race and ethnicity in the United States: Issues and debates. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Suskind, R. 1998. A hope unseen: An American odyssey from the inner city to the Ivy League. NY: Broadway Books.

Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Worchel, S. & Austin, W.G. (Eds.)., The social psychology of intergroup relations: 7-24. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Terkel, S. 1992. Race: How blacks & whites think & feel about the American obsession. NY: Anchor Books.

Thompson, D.E. & DiTomaso, N. 1988. Ensuring minority success in corporate management. NY: Plenum.

Tilly, C. 1998. Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Tomaskovic-Devey, D. 1993. Gender & racial inequality at work: The sources & consequences of job segregation. NY: ILR Press.

Tuch, S.A. & Martin, J.K. 1997. Racial attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and change. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Waldinger, R. 1996. Still the promised city?: African-Americans and new immigrants in postindustrial New York City. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, W.J. 1978. The declining significance of race: Blacks and changing American institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, W.J. 1987. The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, W.J. 1996. When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Wilson, W.J. 1999. The bridge over the racial divide: Rising inequality and coalition politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Yinger, J. 1995. Closed doors, opportunities lost: The continuing costs of housing discrimination. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Zweigenhaft, R. L. & Domhoff, G. W. 1991. Blacks in the white establishment?

A study of race and class in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

TABLE 1. THE AMERICAN NON-DILEMMA STUDY:

*There seemed to be major differences in the life experiences of lower middle and upper middle class college educated people in New Jersey, so a larger number of college educated people were included in the New Jersey sample to make sure both were well represented. Because the area where the interviews were done in Ohio is basically a working class area, many more non-college educated people showed up in the sample even in the more well to do areas, so we ended up with somewhat more representation of non-college educated people in the Ohio sample.